(09-01-2015 10:57 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Doesn't matter now. The scandal has legs. She is a danger to our Nation... whatever brings her down...is good.


Oh and BTW. She Broke the Law.

And that is exactly why they never let this go. Because they knew if the pressed and pressed and pressed, eventually they would find something that would stick.

That's how they got Billy.

It never matters if you don't get them on the original supposed scandal. They simply wait until they can find something that they can run with.


Thankfully, the American people saw through it with Billy and they will do the same with HRC.

(09-01-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:57 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Doesn't matter now. The scandal has legs. She is a danger to our Nation... whatever brings her down...is good.


Oh and BTW. She Broke the Law.

And that is exactly why they never let this go. Because they knew if the pressed and pressed and pressed, eventually they would find something that would stick.

That's how they got Billy.

It never matters if you don't get them on the original supposed scandal. They simply wait until they can find something that they can run with.


Thankfully, the American people saw through it with Billy and they will do the same with HRC.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

(09-01-2015 10:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

That happens AFTER an investigation. The fact the the investigation is not complete does not mean the law hasn't been broken.

(09-01-2015 11:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

That happens AFTER an investigation. The fact the the investigation is not complete does not mean the law hasn't been broken.

We are not like Barack "if I had a son" Obama. We gather facts before charging someone.

(09-01-2015 11:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

That happens AFTER an investigation. The fact the the investigation is not complete does not mean the law hasn't been broken.

That's fine...but don't say that she broke the law then until the investigation is complete. That's what I'm doing.

(09-01-2015 10:20 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:18 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  It is amazing the women is not in jail. So if this email, released on Friday, had to heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025 it must have ok to send over private email with no security and unclassfied back in 2013.

Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released

Quote:t said about 150 of the messages had to be censored because they contained information considered to be classified.

One of the emails - sent in November 2013 by Mrs Clinton's then foreign policy adviser Jacob Sullivan - was published heavily redacted and marked classified until 2025.

That is illegal, she needs to be charged.

I agree and it is clear as day. I have no idea why some still defend her actions unless it is just partisan politics and/or trolling.
[/quote]

Hopefully the FBI is doing a full investigation so it will take time to realize how many classified DOCs there really are.

(09-01-2015 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

That happens AFTER an investigation. The fact the the investigation is not complete does not mean the law hasn't been broken.

That's fine...but don't say that she broke the law then until the investigation is complete. That's what I'm doing.

The evidence is staring you right to m the face. I guess you just want to be difficult and have us say she should be facing charges based on the evidence that she broke the law instead of simply stating she broke the law. Quit being difficult. You know damned well she broke the law and will be charged

(09-01-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:57 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Doesn't matter now. The scandal has legs. She is a danger to our Nation... whatever brings her down...is good.


Oh and BTW. She Broke the Law.

And that is exactly why they never let this go. Because they knew if the pressed and pressed and pressed, eventually they would find something that would stick.

That's how they got Billy.

It never matters if you don't get them on the original supposed scandal. They simply wait until they can find something that they can run with.

It's just never crossed your radar that the Clintons are just sleazy people, has it?

(09-01-2015 11:41 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:57 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Doesn't matter now. The scandal has legs. She is a danger to our Nation... whatever brings her down...is good.


Oh and BTW. She Broke the Law.

And that is exactly why they never let this go. Because they knew if the pressed and pressed and pressed, eventually they would find something that would stick.

That's how they got Billy.

It never matters if you don't get them on the original supposed scandal. They simply wait until they can find something that they can run with.

It's just never crossed your radar that the Clintons are just sleazy people, has it?

Of course they are sleazy people. Most politicians are. I just don't see the need to spend all these resources on trying to get her on what will amount to a technicality.

Obama could have done the same thing to Bush with the torture issue and blah blah blah.

It's just now worth it. The American people know better.

(09-01-2015 12:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:41 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:57 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Doesn't matter now. The scandal has legs. She is a danger to our Nation... whatever brings her down...is good.


Oh and BTW. She Broke the Law.

And that is exactly why they never let this go. Because they knew if the pressed and pressed and pressed, eventually they would find something that would stick.

That's how they got Billy.

It never matters if you don't get them on the original supposed scandal. They simply wait until they can find something that they can run with.

It's just never crossed your radar that the Clintons are just sleazy people, has it?

Of course they are sleazy people.

I just want to preserve this for posterity.

(09-01-2015 11:32 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:24 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

That happens AFTER an investigation. The fact the the investigation is not complete does not mean the law hasn't been broken.

That's fine...but don't say that she broke the law then until the investigation is complete. That's what I'm doing.

The evidence is staring you right to m the face. I guess you just want to be difficult and have us say she should be facing charges based on the evidence that she broke the law instead of simply stating she broke the law. Quit being difficult. You know damned well she broke the law and will be charged

I don't know either. And to that, even if she did break the law, that doesn't guarantee she will be charged.

Sorry, I prefer to live with absolutes.

(09-01-2015 11:16 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:10 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Her actions were wrong and she has since admitted that she should not have done it this way.

That still doesn't mean she broke any laws.

Her actions were wrong because they were against the law.

Has she been charged with a crime?

That happens AFTER an investigation. The fact the the investigation is not complete does not mean the law hasn't been broken.

We are not like Barack "if I had a son" Obama. We gather facts before charging someone.

So " if I had a son" equates charging someone?

(09-01-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:26 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Whether or not something is marked "classified" does not excuse her from transmitting it if it was indeed classified.

As SOS she should be very wary of anything she receives that could be classified and if she even suspects that something might be classified and isn't properly identified as classified she should not pass it on and should flag it immediately and report it upon receipt. She can not hang her hat on "I didn't know" when it is her job to know, to recognize possible misclassified info or to find out its status if she isn't certain.

If she claims that she didn't know something was classified when she received it how well could she possibly be doing her job! It is absolutely her job to recognize potential classified material whether marked or not and handle it correctly.

How is she supposed to know it is classified if it isn't labeled classified?

You can't be serious here, can you?

She's an attorney for one. She's a former Senator for two. She was the SITTING Sec of State.

Anyone and everyone in any of the former two positions is briefed and drilled and made sure that they understand what things are for pubic consumption, what things are not. It's not really that hard actually. Stuff like where personnel are, their movements, diplomatic talks and negotiations, damn near anything of current discussion not otherwise known as she and Bubba's yoga schedule etc.

Not only that, we know a couple things here. It's not just that she was using a private server and maintaining a private account (AOL, yahoo acct, gmail, whatever) for her personal e-mails and using .gov for the business end of what she was doing as some of her bootlickers are trying to argue. It's that she conducted ALL her e-mails over this
interestingly deceitful HDR account. Why not HRC which is what she has gone by for decades now? But that aside-

Now, we've established she was the SOS, right? Now we've established that she used this HDR account exclusively, correct?

What on earth was she doing for 4 years if a sitting SOS isn't getting any classified information? What was she doing all this time? If it wasn't work related and State Dept. work, how in hell did she generate some 60,000 or more emails in four years? WTF was she doing?

That's a hell of a lot of wedding planning and yoga.

And finally, if the remainder was all mundane crap, why'd she delete the ENTIRE account, only release a limited percent of the entire email lot, and then attempt to have the entire server professionally scrubbed clean after she knew they were coming after it?

Wait til she finds out the FBI is able to reconstruct the server, that's gonna be some Grade A Terlinqua two-steppin' there.

Just as dirty as they come, yet some will still lap this schit up. It's truly amazing.

(09-01-2015 12:43 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:26 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Whether or not something is marked "classified" does not excuse her from transmitting it if it was indeed classified.

As SOS she should be very wary of anything she receives that could be classified and if she even suspects that something might be classified and isn't properly identified as classified she should not pass it on and should flag it immediately and report it upon receipt. She can not hang her hat on "I didn't know" when it is her job to know, to recognize possible misclassified info or to find out its status if she isn't certain.

If she claims that she didn't know something was classified when she received it how well could she possibly be doing her job! It is absolutely her job to recognize potential classified material whether marked or not and handle it correctly.

How is she supposed to know it is classified if it isn't labeled classified?

You can't be serious here, can you?

She's an attorney for one. She's a former Senator for two. She was the SITTING Sec of State.

Anyone and everyone in any of the former two positions is briefed and drilled and made sure that they understand what things are for pubic consumption, what things are not. It's not really that hard actually. Stuff like where personnel are, their movements, diplomatic talks and negotiations, damn near anything of current discussion not otherwise known as she and Bubba's yoga schedule etc.

Not only that, we know a couple things here. It's not just that she was using a private server and maintaining a private account (AOL, yahoo acct, gmail, whatever) for her personal e-mails and using .gov for the business end of what she was doing as some of her bootlickers are trying to argue. It's that she conducted ALL her e-mails over this
interestingly deceitful HDR account. Why not HRC which is what she has gone by for decades now? But that aside-

Now, we've established she was the SOS, right? Now we've established that she used this HDR account exclusively, correct?

What on earth was she doing for 4 years if a sitting SOS isn't getting any classified information? What was she doing all this time? If it wasn't work related and State Dept. work, how in hell did she generate some 60,000 or more emails in four years? WTF was she doing?

That's a hell of a lot of wedding planning and yoga.

And finally, if the remainder was all mundane crap, why'd she delete the ENTIRE account, only release a limited percent of the entire email lot, and then attempt to have the entire server professionally scrubbed clean after she knew they were coming after it?

Wait til she finds out the FBI is able to reconstruct the server, that's gonna be some Grade A Terlinqua two-steppin' there.

Just as dirty as they come, yet some will still lap this schit up. It's truly amazing.

Her typical defense on all these things is that she is stupid.
Then she runs on competency?

However, I imagine she did a pretty thorough job of wiping the server.

What is strange is I haven't heard anyone ask the obvious questions:
1) Who wiped it?
2) When was it wiped?
3) Who ordered it wiped?

I'd be surprised if #2 wasn't sometime after it was requested and #3 wasn't Hillary herself.

(09-01-2015 12:43 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:26 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Whether or not something is marked "classified" does not excuse her from transmitting it if it was indeed classified.

As SOS she should be very wary of anything she receives that could be classified and if she even suspects that something might be classified and isn't properly identified as classified she should not pass it on and should flag it immediately and report it upon receipt. She can not hang her hat on "I didn't know" when it is her job to know, to recognize possible misclassified info or to find out its status if she isn't certain.

If she claims that she didn't know something was classified when she received it how well could she possibly be doing her job! It is absolutely her job to recognize potential classified material whether marked or not and handle it correctly.

How is she supposed to know it is classified if it isn't labeled classified?

You can't be serious here, can you?

She's an attorney for one. She's a former Senator for two. She was the SITTING Sec of State.

Anyone and everyone in any of the former two positions is briefed and drilled and made sure that they understand what things are for pubic consumption, what things are not. It's not really that hard actually. Stuff like where personnel are, their movements, diplomatic talks and negotiations, damn near anything of current discussion not otherwise known as she and Bubba's yoga schedule etc.

Not only that, we know a couple things here. It's not just that she was using a private server and maintaining a private account (AOL, yahoo acct, gmail, whatever) for her personal e-mails and using .gov for the business end of what she was doing as some of her bootlickers are trying to argue. It's that she conducted ALL her e-mails over this
interestingly deceitful HDR account. Why not HRC which is what she has gone by for decades now? But that aside-

Now, we've established she was the SOS, right? Now we've established that she used this HDR account exclusively, correct?

What on earth was she doing for 4 years if a sitting SOS isn't getting any classified information? What was she doing all this time? If it wasn't work related and State Dept. work, how in hell did she generate some 60,000 or more emails in four years? WTF was she doing?

That's a hell of a lot of wedding planning and yoga.

And finally, if the remainder was all mundane crap, why'd she delete the ENTIRE account, only release a limited percent of the entire email lot, and then attempt to have the entire server professionally scrubbed clean after she knew they were coming after it?

Wait til she finds out the FBI is able to reconstruct the server, that's gonna be some Grade A Terlinqua two-steppin' there.

Just as dirty as they come, yet some will still lap this schit up. It's truly amazing.

If it went down that way then there should be no trouble finding her guilty of something.